Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 23

1884.] H-EARNE V. GILLETT. 23
Syllabus.
considered. Howard v. Mayor of Houston, 59 Tex., 78; Blum v.
Schram & Co., 58 Tex., 524; Sabine & E. Tex. R. Co. v. Joachimi,
58 Tex., 452; R. S., art. 1363.
Even, however, if such bill of exceptions had been prepared and
saved in time, and we were to consider it, it does not affirmatively
appear from the record that the notice of injury which was given
by the appellee was not then considered by all the parties as sufficient.
It plainly appears from the evidence that the appellant at
the time considered the notice given, whatever it was, as sufficient,
and agreed with appellee upon the sum to be paid, the amount
being the same that was found by the judgment of the court to be
the proper amount.
This case has been twice tried, with the same result on each, trial,
and as the record discloses no material error, the judgment is
affirmed.
/'w~'"'""~ AFFIRMED.
[Opinion delivered June 6, 187./t
_5:
JOHN R. IAVNE V. SOLOMON L. GILLETT.
(Case No. 4898.)
1. LAND CERTIFICATE.- A land certificate, though personal property wheir unlocated,
loses its character as such after its location, and becomes a chattel
real, title to which can no longer pass by parol.
2. SAME.- The right to a land certificate passes with the transfer of all claim
and title to the land on which it is located, though the parties might by express
stipulation avoid this result, and by floating it again constitute it personal
property.
3. CONSTRUCTION OF WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS.-- All the provisions of a written
contract must be construed together to ascertain their true meaning, and
that construction will be adopted which will harmonize and give an interpretation
to each clause, consistent with the meaning of the rest of the
instrument. See opinion for an application of this rule.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
4. COMMISSIONERS OF APPEAL.--The reasons given by the commissioners of appeal
for their decision in Smyth v. Veal, 2 Tex. L. Rep., 261, were never
adopted by the supreme court, though their conclusions were.
5. LAND CERTIFICATE.-A valid agreement in writing to convey to another all
the right, claim and title which the obligor has in land covered by a land
certificate, necessarily includes any claim the obligor had at the time, by
virtue of the land certificate located thereon.
APPEAL from Robertson. Tried below before the Hon. W. E.
Collard.